I actually think the advent of the "over explained" tutorial is a reaction to the mid 90s when games were getting a lot more abstract in their mechanics. It's most easily seen with games like X-Com or Civ II or perhaps some of the SNES RPGs. Sometimes people didn't read, or didn't have the manual and while I don't condone not reading when you're hit with a bunch of stats and open possibilities (and some manuals were crap at explaining some things) then people would either figure it out or get frustrated. These people would then go on to design games and viola, the modern tutorial.
I think Assassin's Creed Brotherhood probably has the best. They're non invasive, and if you're truly stumped about how to climb then you read their little blurb. If you got dis shit, then you climb. I know he probably wasn't using it as a specific example, but Just Cause 2 had a good tutorial. They were the beginning sets of missions. By the end of that you're able to do just about everything in the game.
Good in-game tutorial now just replace manuals. CoD 4 puts you in the training room where you go through everything, and they let you go through it as many times as you want under the guise of beating the record.
I don't think modern game design insults the intelligence per-se. In fact, I blame it on gamers growing up. We don't have time to sit through the game and learn through experimentation. We want to know what do so we can get some fun in before we run from and or pay the IRS their due.