OK, I've got a gripe about this question, and please allow me to vent.
Yes, I get that we all have our own personal tastes and thoughts, and that's fine.
But seriously, do many of the games that have changed over the years in minor or even trivial ways listed (e.g, use of graphics other than numbers in Cover Ups, the design of a particular board, etc.) truly change the gameplay? Or is it that some of you simply think it's -- to borrow a TV Tropes quote: "They Changed It, Now It Sucks."
In my opinion, no.
At the end of the day, Cover Up's objective (for instance) is still the same: Guess the price of the car. You choose from a pool of digits that increases by one, from two choices for the ten-thousands digit to six for the ones digit, then after a check of each guess if the answer is correct but there is at least one digit right (or one new digit correct for subsequent guesses), you get another guess. The game ends when your last guess is correct or the last guess contains no new correct digits since the last incorrect guess.
And personally, I do like Drew Carey asking the contestant to say hello to whomever. It's the contestant's chance to shine and give a shout out to people that are important to them. It's about the contestant, and quite frankly I'm surprised that some people are (in the very least) annoyed by this.
I recall a comment somewhere (not sure if it was on GR.net or elsewhere) that the contestants behave like people jakked up on Red Bull, etc., especially in recent years, although sometimes I think a lot of us forget there were people who acted overly-excited (for lack of a better term) as far back as the original "Let's Make a Deal" with Monty Hall in the mid-1960s. Face it: The parlor game we saw in the early days of the CBS-era TPiR is by far longtime gone.
After all these years, I'm still of the opinion that some people still miss the Bob Barker era, his personality and his hosting style. Which is fine, but with the caveat that at some point it would have ended, and that did 12 years ago.
So for me, the answer of the lost element of games I miss is the following:
* When we could simply enjoy the show for what it was: A game show where nothing other than an hour of our time hung in the balance.
* That sometimes things change, even if not for the better, but they change and someone decided those changes were for the better, even if others disagree. This was true, even in the Bob Barker-era ... sets and rules changed, various changes made, favorite games were retired, etc.
* That sometimes, there are shows where everything works well, flows well, the contestants play the games well (even in losses) and there are a lot of cash and prizes won. And sometimes, there are episodes where nothing seems to go well, up to and including the episodes some have dubbed "el skunko" (the worst possible outcome being six outright losses followed by a double overbid in the showcase). But many shows are in between: Some things go right, others not so well; some episodes are better directed than others, some directors are better, but that's how it goes. Point being: That's life and we survive, are grateful for what we have, and life goes on.
And that's my two cents worth.
Brian