Why were people smarter... because they didn't hardly use computers and instead had to memorize information instead, or know where to look for it in the giant encyclopedia or dictionary rather than googling everything?

--- Hmmm because most games weren't that complicated. Hey, pressing up makes my character go up! WoW! let's look around! Literally they'd have one or two screens for types of interfaces/playing, not much more.

I doubt it wasn't because they didn't want to put tutorials in, but they didn't have the room. You can only fit so much into an 8k rom, or a NES game. Nah instead they put the tutorial/controls in the manual. Even then you could play without the manual (as i did) and figure out the rules. Joust for example. move around and jump on the other birds, collect eggs..... not very hard...

Jump-man, 'jump' on platforms collect the things and don't die

Pac-man, go through a maze collect dots and don't die

(A lot of games include 'and don't die' you'll find)

Questron, explore and... something... i remember getting quite far although the story and everything escapes me; Yes i know it's a clone of Ultima. You have the world screen, in town, and stores/gambling. (and a 3d-drawn dungeon delving later)

Though some of the more complex games like a D&D game i found i could never understand and didn't give much of a chance to... And only now am i thinking back on those and my 10-yearold self.

because back then the 'tutorials' where in the manuals for more complex games, and for simpler gamers there was no need for any (i.e. space invaders, pac man et al). Since games no longer have paper based manuals, the tutorials are in the games thmeselves. However, the best games are those that teach the player how to play them ubiquitous and never really notice it. Personaly, i am glad the manuals are gone, and that it is all contained within the games now.

It also occurred to me that it is not necessarily other people who have changed, but you.

So it may be that back in the 80s and 90s you were more stupid than what you are now, and that is why people around you felt smarter back then.

I mean, look at you, now writing long intricate messages to internet discussion forums, while back then you could barely say gu-gu ga-ga.

I think the correct way to put it is that it became simpler to do more complicated things in them. To continue your Warcraft example - Warcraft 3 is a vastly more complex game than the first two, it has more factions, the factions are now asymetrical (and there's a much stronger story) but the game is also simply way more convenient to pick up and play than the first clunky Warcraft. And the same is true for many genres. It's a simple matter of devs learning how to streamline many elements and of technology allowing for better solutions.

yes, when someon says "ohh whoa, just look at this game from 1996, it came with a 256 page manua!", then what i think is "yeah, that was bad game design"

Not always though. Look at Civilization. From memory, it had a manual running to approx 160 pages. It would be a brave argument that the first Civ was bad game design. There were a few pages that took you through the mechanics of how the game basically operated and the remainder was more a reference guide plus context for the game.

I miss large manuals - when done well, they really add to the overall experience of a game. Take something like Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb - the manual for that (although short) was a real thing of beauty.

In relation to PC gaming, the issue is that it went mainstream. PC gaming (and arguably gaming in general) used to have a much higher barrier to entry in terms of complexity of software and hardware. This was a good thing for quality. Obviously casual crowds wouldn't appreciate the care poured into hundreds of pages of manuals; that was part of a grand experience that wouldn't appeal to the mainstream. I think it goes beyond just saving costs on paper.

In general, I blame herd-following, from which has stemmed much superficiality and the Memberberry Cinematic Universe propagandizing the idea that Tony Stark is a big tech cool guy, so we should all like the big tech cool guys. I appreciate that people are in some respects more open-minded about various topics, and that it is "cool to be a nerd", but when people get deep in intellectual curiosity it seems that becomes uncool again, cancelling any real progress.

The casualization and quality of life features have its price, in adopting lazy habits. The culture of immediatence, the easy and fast way to the information made the life easier and had its good things but its price is having an excess of information where its main labor is not the knowledge of to inform. That can become in less deep and critical filters. And in theory it should have become in the contrary.

But honestly I have my doubts. I fear that in general the "smarter people in 80/90" concept is not too accurate, if not false. Too generalistic.

Games then came with manuals. Something that's a rarity nowadays. Some of the manuals were pretty big.

They were not, it's just that the games of yore were far more grognardy. Some of the earliest computer games were literal transcriptions of boring old war games with rule supplements, and they quickly were pushed out of the market. Many games from the 80s or 90s were so simple that you could print a key guide onscreen and that'd be your lot.

You know, Maniac Miner or Jet Set Willy? Where you have all of three keys to keep in mind?

Personally, I think one of few things that Glover did right was to make the tutorial into a literal location you could visit anytime to give yourself a refresher, but since it was part of the hub world, you didn't have to go that far to revisit it.

Super Mario Bros, for example is a practical masterclass in intuitive design. You can learn just about 90% of what the game is about within the first screen of the game. Goombas? Bad. ? blocks? Hit those. While I have heard tales of people not realizing that there's a run button, the game is absolutely doable without it.
I'd argue that Civ 1 actually does have a fair bit of jank in it. Managing cities individually with nonintuitive icons, trying to optimize trade and productivity with the very paltry start; having to use settlers to work land, it feels like you never have enough time to even get your cities optimized.

It depends. How old were you in the '90s? That should give me precious info to elaborate a correct answer.

Perhaps, but within the confines of the technology available at the time, the interface was really good. It's pretty hard to create something that meets 2020 UI standards (which aren't always objectively intuitive, but sometimes are based on societal conditioning as to what you've been driven to find intuitive) within a 320x240 (or whatever it used) resolution.

Regarding using the settlers to work land, you could argue whether that's more or less intuitive than having separate workers to do the job.

I'm wondering whether some of the things that are characterised today as bad design decisions are really just the result of the hardware limitations of the time - plus the fact that the video games industry hadn't homogenised to the level of today, where there's relatively little differentiation in how to approach issues.

Well, let's see. I was born just about 5-6 months before the USSR collapsed...

They weren't. Various studies have proven that each generation grows smarter.

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/11/30/are-younger-generations-smarter/

Follow the studies linked therein.

Computers, and therefore, video games were only available to a select few back in the '80s & '90s; usually privileged people who had money to buy such expensive machines. Even consoles weren't as popular as they are today. They were really expensive. Also, arcade games were much simpler than modern games, and were extremely unfair to the players, just so they'd take your coins. Computer games also relied on game guides which were sold separately (extra revenue).

Internet guides, cheaper machines (both consoles and computers), and budget pricing for older games made gaming available to more and more people. You're comparing a "privileged few" against almost everyone and their mother in today's world.

Today's gaming relies on entertainment (ignoring pay-to-win schemes and loot-boxes) more so than selling game guides. The cost of games has also grown considerably, and therefore, the attempt to appeal to a greater audience suggests that games be easier to get into, can be played in short chunks without the need of spending half an hour reading a manual, and therefore require shorter attention spans. Case in point, this is a long reply. How many will read it as a whole.

So, no, people weren't smarter. Studies have been proving the opposite since the early 20th century. A considerably greater amount of people are playing games now than they used to.