I started playing Valheim in the very first day of release. I was totally amazed by the chilled and self explaining play style. Of course I nominated this game for the "Game of the year" award. It was for me. The rather slow development of content in the years that followed were not a big drawback for me. But when they implemented the abominations in the swamps they showed me the door. My game play experience was totally ruined by those creatures that just tow out time when I gather the iron for my main playing content: building.
The final kick in my face I've received with this Mistlands disaster. There is a lot of work to do imo. I still love playing the game. But I avoid that boring and annoying "new content".
They started with a game like a 5 star dinner and give us now with Mistlands a bucket of lard.

It's a nomination for a meaningless award in a meaningless award lineup.
Awards for a long time have either been given to stuff subjectively from a few select people or objectively by sheer popularity/amount.
Neither will give you an idea of what's actually good, making this whole award worthless.

Is OP referring to the Steam awards or some other awards?
If the Steam awards - it probably got nominated because it was eligible, and really matters little, but if anyone disagrees, it probably should be directed at Valve instead of this forum.

If some other award - which and what are we discussing?

My guess is it boils down to being about capitalism. Although games are in early access they are still for sale. Game awards are p̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y advertisements. Hence, all games for sale, regardless of early access status, get to vie for the free publicity.

I've got no problem with Early Access* games getting awards and reviews, but, a Debut award should probably go to a game which has actually debuted.

*I nearly abbreviated that, except there's a very different E.A. that I do have a problem with... 😅

To answer your question, for cheap exposure and sales. That second company horse won't pay for its own livery!

Personally I think the debut category should be eligible for anything that has debutted. Even if it's debutting as early access, that is still it's debut, and it still made an impression. If an unfinished game is beating out the finished ones in other categories though that sounds like its more a concern for those making the (increasingly lower quality) finished games. Pretty much every big name publisher has ran their own names through the mud at some point in the last decade, it does not surprise me when unfinished early access titles actually steal the bigger boys thunder at this point. Least I only paid $20-$30 for the unfinished indie title that probably has the same amount of bugs and playtime (or in valheims case, less bugs actually. Valheim is one of the mos stable early access titles I have played, more stable than some of the complete AAA games i own).

TL:DR if the unfinished game actually earns those awards over the completed games, maybe it's a reflection of the completed games lack of quality overall, steam awards are by popular vote after all.

Why nominate any poorly launched AAA game with poor reviews instead? Only seems fitting an actual game deserving of awards gets nominated.

So for example No mans sky which debuted as full release and took 4+ years content patches to become something other than a steaming pile can be nominated and Valheim which actually has some good content can't ?

... I believe you're in the majority here. Might be wrong though.

Valheim is so totally deserving of the best survival game nomination. Comparing a PC game to a TV series is like comparing apples to oranges, I ask how can you compare them? As far as I'm concerned this game should be never ending. The possibilities of continuing to introduce new biomes, enemies, bosses, etc. are infinite. It is hands down the best survival game!

I had more fun with Empyrion, but if I want to play with friends, I have to play Valheim.

all games are automatically eligible via steam and how it does things.
you would most likely have to take it up with them on their forums.

Originally posted by Uthael:

... I believe you're in the majority here. Might be wrong though.

Considering the current score of the reviews on the store page and from the different critic sites (IGN, OpenCritic, Metacritic, PCMag, etc.), the OP is not. The majority of people (and critics) like the game, think it should get awards, and have given positive reviews for it despite it still being in Early Access.

Because it's already better than many finished games.