If I'm correct they both function on the same criteria. Voted in by judges selected from media (media whom give out their own awards without the circus and cameras). You are simply warping reality to your dudebro-hunting mentality if you want to say SpikeTV's award show isn't a ceremony. If you take the ceremony out and simply focus on the lists and winners, I don't see how they are very far apart.
They are both rather pompous events (ceremonies) where criticism takes a backseat (this is why award ceremonies are a joke, all the way up to the oscars). Simply different flavors. One sort of pretension (where lil videogaems tries to put on daddy's suit (which looks totally dumb on him) and act like what he thinks an adult is) appeals to you, while MTV music awards crossed with macho man randy savage scares you away. The latter is the way it is because whoever is behind it realizes how terribly boring it would be to watch a serious videogame award ceremony without teasers or at the very least beautiful, charismatic people winning (let alone high-quality skits those beautiful people are acting in). While some mediums can get away with it within their "core" audiences, videogames simply doesn't have the history of pseudo-intellecual circle-jerking to counteract the "dumb", "mainstream" pleasure seekers. Hollywood has turned ass-licking on the red carpet into an industry. Turned pictures of B-list actors while they eat at McDonalds into a religious props.
At the end of the day if SpikeTV says Call of Duty is the best game ever and BAFTA says Heavy Rain is not a profoundly shitty game or that Red Dead Redemption is the best, what does it matter when Vanquish is better than all that, but completely absent? You can turn IGN's Top 100 games of alllll timeeee into the Oscars or the MTV movie awards, but what does that matter... really? At the very least SpikeTV has a "so bad its good" factor (and "so bad, it trolls me and gives me something to release stress at" factor) and the neat trailers. I have to assume that's why anyone on GAF watches it.
I can't really agree with virtually anything you said, but let me address just a few points.
1) I really don't care about what games they choose to award and why, it's the "how" that matters for the sake of this argument. So no, I'm not joining you in your outrage and freaking over BAFTA giving a prize to a game I don't like, because that's entirely beyond the point.
2) If you're so insecure about your hobby to think it should "know its place" and don't mess with adult stuff, that's really your problem.
I'm completely unapologetic about my interest for games and I don't feel the urge to distance myself from everyone taking them seriously or even intellectualizing them to some extent.
3) I'm not really in a "dudebro-hunting mentality". Just because I don't deny that the "fratboy" (or dudebro) approach to a matter exists, it doesn't mean it's my main concern. Or that I think it's particularly worse than other kind of annoying attitudes.
4) Whatever you think it's "pretentious" is not really relevant to me. My point about developers stands. If you watch the VGA they make almost sound like games materialize themselves out of thin air just for the sake of giving cool stuff to their audience. While during BAFTA you get some introductory speech for every single award assigned, pointing the professional or artistic merits of developers and even giving them a chance to make their "thanks" speech, which may be boring for you but probably matters for them.