Since this is complex (and I have a few extra minutes), I'll summarize how the experience of living on a tidally locked moon would differ from life on a comparable independent planet:
1. For half the planet, there's a big ol' planet in your night sky! And possibly your daytime sky too... The other half of the planet would have no idea about the planet until they sailed/walked to the planet side (or got visitors).
2. Because of the reflected radiation from the planet, plant growth rates (assuming photosynthesis) on the planet side would probably be greater than the outward side. This would make a strong case for strongly different evolutionary paths not just for plants, but for the animals that consume them all the way up to sentients.
3. There will be a lot more volcanoes, geysers, deep sea vents, and other geothermal activity. Because geothermal energy represents a higher proportion of the total energy available to the world, it is more likely to be harnessed by lifeforms of all sorts, from bacteria to advanced civilizations.
4. Because of #3, you're probably a bit further out in the star's habitability zone than a comparably temperate independent planet would be, meaning the cultural relationship between the star and the planet might shift toward the planet.
5. Aurora are frequent and spectacular.
6. Depending on the orbit, there would be at least significantly longer and more frequent eclipses.

So yeah, I guess my take is that if we can resolve the day length problem, this could be great. The opportunities to leverage these differences to build unique and interesting geographies, ecologies, and cultures are many, but the baseline normality of the world is maintained.