If Heavy rain is ahead of it's time gameplay wise, what can be said about Tex Murphy games?

I agree. I don't think it will sell well at all. Like 500k tops.

Agreed.  Where I see it being challenging is in asking people to play (or interact) with what looks like a fairly dark, difficult story.  I personally love films that and will give this a try, but right now with videogames this is pretty risky and potentially ahead of the acceptance curve for this kind of experience - something common in books and somewhat common, on and off, in films - from the general videogaming public.

wow kowen,im proud of you.lol. completely agree with u.

The only thing ahead of its time is THE CELL.

that never gets old....no...it doesn't...

Interactive movie games with QTEs didn't work in 90's. I doubt they will work now either. I guess those games in 90's were ahead their times... Or not. :)

Let's say this following description from the article is true:

Heavy Rain breaks the controls of your life down into discrete actions: you'll have to shake your controller to brush your teeth, you need to dry yourself after taking a shower. In an early scene in the demo you play swords with your children. Starting a car may take multiple steps. This is all done for a reason, to make you feel like you're in the middle of an actual life, in a real place—but when gamers see screenshots with pictures of buttons overlaid on the action, they're going to think quick-time events, a conceit that many—including us in the past—have very little patience for.

Why would that be considered the future of gaming?  When are gamers EVER going to want to get into having to do that?  It isn't mature themes, having an emotional impact, or whatever.  If the game fails, it will be because of GAMEPLAY not being fun.  I don't consider it a good sign when you start hyping what makes a movie good, as the basis for why a game is good (and no mention of the gameplay). 

It may not be a bad, but one can question how much of a game it is.  If it is primarily just watching, and it flows linerally, and where what you do is in the minority of the time spend in it, the concept of game is questioned here.  It fits far more under interactive fiction, than a game.  In this, if the game flows like a rail shooter, but you do merely quick time events, then it is pushing the idea it isn't a game.

And don't lament that it didn't do well, if it doesn't.  No matter how much marketing is there, if it isn't going to have appealing gameplay, why would it sell?  Should one argue also that Brutal Legend should sell millions, because it has entertaining writing, even if the gameplay is disappointing?

I am buying it, but that's simply because I love well-directed cutscenes in games and because I enjoyed Fahrenheit even though the last 1/3 of that game was a complete mess story-wise.

Most people, however, would rather watch a movie than play a game like this. And there is no denying that watching real actors play is much better than watching some mo-capped rendered models in a game attempt to do that. For the same reason movies like Spirits Within and Beowulf were not successfull (Avatar was but it has got real actors)