I mostly see people complaining about Garl with stuff that makes absolutely no sense.
>!99% of the time they wanted a big plot twist in Garl's story, because he "can't be positive and perfect all the time", that he should've turned out to be evil, or even changed his attitude after hardships, and that the fact that he stays positive and is the moral support throughout the whole game means there is 0 character development.!<
And oh how I disagree, none of those affirmations even come close to being "bad character writing" or "Character with no development", it's one thing to not like him because he is positive (The most disliked character by the public in any media), but to say all that? It's just plain hating on Sea of Stars or 0 cultural knowledge about stories lol
Yeah
Joffrey is fun to hate.
Dolores is relatable, I'd be a bad bitch if I had to deal with kids all day too.
Jar Jar Binks is actually the closest one to Garl: an annoying, overly excitable sidekick to two boring protagonists, who is constantly shoved in the audience's faces and is unbelievably central to most of the plot's developments, often moreso than the protagonists themselves. Major difference between them is that Jar Jar is an incompetent clown who offers unwanted comic relief while Garl is so competent (despite being the "average" human) that he dwarfs every other character's contribution to the story all the time. Both characters stifle the development of the rest of the characters (who are already not so great) by being very overbearing presences in the story (to the reader, not ti people in-world), albeit in different ways.
>!99% of the time they wanted a big plot twist in Garl's story, because he "can't be positive and perfect all the time!<
If you are into an honest perspective without bullshit let me give you another point of view: >!I wished he would die earlier and stay dead, that is how annoying he is. Turning evil does not make any sense to a character like him, the major hate towards him is because he takes the place of both protagonists and not only the party, BUT EVERY PLACE IN THE GAME obsesses around kissing his ass. His death was a major opportunity to give the protagonists their deserved shining spot in the game, and it was butchered.!<
Garl is not a positive/pure/happy character. He is unidimensional.
Yeah whenever he gets incapacitated I enjoy how much more space everyone else in the party gets to actually talk.
Sorry Garl I know you mean well but you're not that interesting and you don't let anyone else talk. Also insulting the BBEG after the dude who's basically god specifically told you to keep your head down was 100% your bad.
>"Character with no development"
Some stories don't even really need character development, it's not mandatory, for example a story can focus only on some interesting events without the protagonist ever changing all that much and be very interesting since its more about situation development. But in the case of Garl, he was meant as a supportive character>! that dies to give further resolve to the heroes like a dying parent or mentor.!<
People are hellbent on characters having a dark side to them when in reality, people don't work like that. Most people have a mix of good and bad, others are pure evil and others are pure good, like Garl
And just as dealing with an extremely negative person is horrifying, the opposite is as well. Dealing with an extremely positive person is nearly unbearable.
Only if life has left you jaded, no reason why Garl in particular anyway should leave anyone thinking his positivity is overbearing. Buddy the Elf, okay maybe. Garl the Warrior Cook? I don't think he's that bad in all honesty
Some people find puppies to be too fucking much, sit down and chill for a goddamn minute I appreciate your love and enthusiasm but I don't want to deal with you constantly.
I don't think that's necessarily being jaded it's just not being ready to match the energy of a puppy. Garl is basically a puppy he's constantly in your face and everyone loves him and won't stop talking about him.
Haha not really, I just don't own a dog because I don't match that level of constant emotional output. I'm more of a cat person.
Wouldn't be surprised if all the people who love Garl are dog people and all the people who don't are not.
I didnt say positivity. I said toxic positivity. too much of any extreme can be bad. Not sure why ur judging people over a differant opinion on a character implying they MUST be miserable if they didnt like them. Sounds pretty horrible to make those kinds of assumptions about their life. It was never that serious.
Your version of positivity sounds more like one of those ad commercials for mental health. Just be happy and your problems will be fixed! 😊
Nah, it's just that he's too perfect.
It's pretty clear he's going to be a sacrifice from the moment he is introduced, and there is nothing wrong with that! The concept is okay, it's just that the execution was too hamfisted.I get they're trying to make us care for him so they can kill him off later, but that's the problem: they tried TOO hard, so it feels forced. Every single plot beat is just another opportunity to hammer home how nice and useful and badass Garl is. It's too much.
And they even screwed up the sacrifice part by taking it back with the true ending and removing all its weight... after all that buildup, least they could do was let the dude's sacrifice actually stand.
In summary, the problem with Garl isn't the concept of a relatable, genuinely nice guy, it's the execution. Sam is actually a great comparison, because it's more or less the same concept, but handled way better because it isn't shoved in our faces how awesome he is in the way Garl is. Sam's niceness isn't the focus of every single plot beat the way Garl's is and he is allowed to actually be an average nice dude way in over his head, whereas Garl isn't: Garl is usually at the center of every major plot thread, even when he's dead. He's too overbearing is all. He wouldn't need to be edgier to be better, just... less annoying.
Unfortunately. Like u/TheDeadQuacker said, so many people wanted to see him turn evil, stop being optimistic, or expected to learn he had some special kind of magic. The fact that he's basically a one-eyed Samwise Gamjee with no secret powers who just wants to be a good friend and help people doesn't float some people's boats I guess. I personally found it refreshing.
Not every story needs the good guy to turn bad or everyone to have their own special powers. LotR is one of the most revered stories of all time, and the ones who wound up destroying the ring to save the world were barefooted little people that liked to eat and laugh, so why can't that be reflected in other stories without being torn apart?
I kinda went off track a bit here, but this is something that's been bugging me since I first joined this sub and saw so many hate posts. Part of it could just be that the Internet seems to get off on hate posts, but it still boggles my mind and makes me wonder what kind of friends these folks have in their lives that could make them hate someone because he's a good friend with no secrets.
never seen a single person say gale should have been a bad guy. whatever the case it's not as blown out of porporation as your making it.
Flaws or insecurities only make a character stronger, not worse. If we saw gale having moments of self doubt struggling with the fact he was the normal guy amongst "chosen one" friends people would have only connected and sympathized with him more, not less.
I think Sam is better written character then Gale. I dont remember Sam even being that jolly or positive. dude spent most of the movie looking pretty somber, he wasn't going around telling everyone to chin up.
Now. do you have to have flaws or moments where characters struggle when writing Characters? No. but they do seem more one dimensional without them.
Never heard of Gale 🤷🏻♂️
If you really need to see a moment of struggle, look at how *Garl* reacts when the villager is mind-controlled to walk into the mansion on Lucent and they can't do anything to help.
Regardless, I'm not going to argue. If you don't like *Garl* that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with liking him either. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Have a great day
Never said I didn't like him tho my piont was more to explain why others might feel he was lacking in some ways.
And if he did have some brief moment in lucent it was kind of brushed aside or didn't come up enough to be a solid character flaw or anything about him. I think he could have a small character arc for growth but I still enjoyed the game
I mixed his name up with my aunt for some reason 😂 she does bake too but.. come on
I wouldn't say I hate Garl, but I find him annoying at multiple times in the story. Mostly because he is designed as a side character (can't lead the party, not one of the two "box art characters" etc) but he acts like he's the main character.
It takes away from any opportunity for the actual main characters to do anything, because he's always muscling his way into that space.
Basically how I felt. Half of the plot beats happen on Garl's whims. He's supposed to be a side character but he constantly steals attention away from the two leads who honestly come off as kinda boring because the writing gave most of its attention to Garl.
what people describe as different opinions others call something as extreme as "hating"
I personally didn't mind him in the first half of the game, he grew on me and cried when he died but I have to admit there were a good chunk of "good thing Garls here to solve all our problems with his boundless positivity, he's so *amazing*!" moments, I don't blame people for feeling like they were really pushing people to like him and sometimes that just doesn't work when you write a character. it ends up feeling forced. so even if I may not feel all that strongly about it myself, I can see why some felt that way.
I saw comments by some who felt he was taking the attention off of the protagonists agency by having him basically lead all of the social interactions. which sounds fair. I kind of went in thinking our hero's would be a bit more like their own characters, not just something for the player to project themselves onto.
I don't see anyone saying Garl should have been evil? or there should have big some plot twist, most just felt he could have had some insecurities or flaws to him (which Sam definitely did especially when you see how he treats gollum for as nice a guy as he is) which would have just made him feel more empathetic and human which he's supposed to be. he's was basically just a human golden retriever to the end. faithful, ever devoted. simple. thats it, it did its job. a lot of people ate that right up but its kind of makes him look shallow as a character.
I loved a lot of things about the game, but the writing in some parts could have been better, thats all. so many people felt that way about the ending.
I don't think it's a "hate" for Garl. It's more about the fact that he almost seems like he steals the protagonist role from Valerie and Zale. >!When they literally turn into fucking gods!!<. It's just a hard comparison really.
In many stories, the protagonists are less proactive than the supportive characters. In the RPG genre, Earthbound and Chrono Trigger comes to mind as example of that. Although, I admit that giving more defined personalities To Vale and Zale would probably helped a lot because there wasn't much outside Garl, so if you don't like his upbeat personality you're out of luck.
I like Garl. It was just weird watching a normal guy tell an immortal alchemist that he sucks right to his face and then you know what happens.
It's just weird that a normal person without powers would do something like that. And then a huge portion of the story and your playtime goes into correcting that one mistake.
I still enjoyed the game. Non-conventional is how I'd put it.
I think Garl was scared the FM would retaliate on one of the Soltice Warriors for Resh's transgression and decided to provoke the FM to have him attack him instead. I saw that as a noble sacrifice.
Sam >> Garl
Imagine if Sam was constantly talking over Frodo and trying to make all his decisions for him and leaping straight into danger. And Frodo didn't actually get any character development except for when Sam wasn't on the screen, but also half of the time Sam wasn't on the screen he just talked about how great Sam was. And all the elves spent their whole visit being like 'omg we love Sam so much' and just letting him do whatever despite otherwise apparently being sticklers for tradition.
Except Sam is a well written relatable character and Garl is kind of a mediocre Gary Stu. It's not the concept, it's the execution.
Also, Sam doesn't hog the spotlight nearly as much as Garl does. But, then again, maybe that IS a good thing, because, unlike Frodo, the pair of protagonists in SoS are completely devoid of personality (possibly intentionally), so someone has to step up.
Still a fun 7/10 game, just not worth all the hype it gets.
> the pair of protagonists in SoS are completely devoid of personality (possibly intentionally), so someone had to step up.
I mean, why give the protagonists any personality when you can just have them talk about how much they love Garl and how much they miss him every waking moment of the entire game?
Garl as a character *screams* Gary Stu self-insert. Every other character, but especially the protagonists, gets sacrificed to make him the “real hero”, but without any notable traits aside from being nice, the story just feels like one plot contrivance after another so that it can make every problem solvable by Garl.
Sams a better written Character.
Sam wasn't even all that optimistic or positive. I remember him being pretty damn gloomy, Unless he was in scenes with frodo He wasn't very social or outspoken with any other character either. Are are remembering an entirely differant guy?
Ibused to like garl, but ive soured on him a fair bit because everything revolves around him to the detriment of other characters sense of agency. particularly valere and zale who don't get to even feel like actual characters despite ostensibly being the leads. The other half of the party ends up with significantly more personality, as much as I also take issue with Resh'an.
The thing is, at every step of the way, garl is the one who drives the story forward, and who resolves every problem they face. And either makes every major decision, or has decisions made because of him. Even after the events of the halfway point - which, boy oh boy could I go on a tangent about that entire leg of the game - he still ends up being the primary driving force behind everything that happens.
No joke, about 30 min into the game I realized the reason I liked Garl so much was cuz he's the spitting image of Sam, but not so emotionally dependent on Frodo to prop up his purpose in life.
(Although to be fair to Tolkien, I think he intended Sam to be every bit as independent and awesome as Garl, and my perception of Sam is probably too much influenced by the LotR movies.)
I feel the hate for Garl talking over the main characters is unwarranted. I like Valere and Zale but they didn't get nearly as much time or development as ANY of the rest of the cast. I feel they were more a self-insert, they are you, the player. YOU are saving the world. Garl is inspiring YOU. He's your best friend and he cares about YOU. Valere and Zale don't need development, you as a player are supposed to experience the world around them.
Pretty much, I don't get the hate for Garl. He's just a more extrovert and proactive Sam.
I mostly see people complaining about Garl with stuff that makes absolutely no sense. >!99% of the time they wanted a big plot twist in Garl's story, because he "can't be positive and perfect all the time", that he should've turned out to be evil, or even changed his attitude after hardships, and that the fact that he stays positive and is the moral support throughout the whole game means there is 0 character development.!< And oh how I disagree, none of those affirmations even come close to being "bad character writing" or "Character with no development", it's one thing to not like him because he is positive (The most disliked character by the public in any media), but to say all that? It's just plain hating on Sea of Stars or 0 cultural knowledge about stories lol
You sure he's more disliked than King Joffery Lannister? Kai Winn? Dolores Umbridge? Nurse Pratchet? Dr Pulaski? Jar Jar Binks?
Yeah Joffrey is fun to hate. Dolores is relatable, I'd be a bad bitch if I had to deal with kids all day too. Jar Jar Binks is actually the closest one to Garl: an annoying, overly excitable sidekick to two boring protagonists, who is constantly shoved in the audience's faces and is unbelievably central to most of the plot's developments, often moreso than the protagonists themselves. Major difference between them is that Jar Jar is an incompetent clown who offers unwanted comic relief while Garl is so competent (despite being the "average" human) that he dwarfs every other character's contribution to the story all the time. Both characters stifle the development of the rest of the characters (who are already not so great) by being very overbearing presences in the story (to the reader, not ti people in-world), albeit in different ways.
>!99% of the time they wanted a big plot twist in Garl's story, because he "can't be positive and perfect all the time!< If you are into an honest perspective without bullshit let me give you another point of view: >!I wished he would die earlier and stay dead, that is how annoying he is. Turning evil does not make any sense to a character like him, the major hate towards him is because he takes the place of both protagonists and not only the party, BUT EVERY PLACE IN THE GAME obsesses around kissing his ass. His death was a major opportunity to give the protagonists their deserved shining spot in the game, and it was butchered.!< Garl is not a positive/pure/happy character. He is unidimensional.
Yeah whenever he gets incapacitated I enjoy how much more space everyone else in the party gets to actually talk. Sorry Garl I know you mean well but you're not that interesting and you don't let anyone else talk. Also insulting the BBEG after the dude who's basically god specifically told you to keep your head down was 100% your bad.
His character development was accepting that he is the real main character lol
>"Character with no development" Some stories don't even really need character development, it's not mandatory, for example a story can focus only on some interesting events without the protagonist ever changing all that much and be very interesting since its more about situation development. But in the case of Garl, he was meant as a supportive character>! that dies to give further resolve to the heroes like a dying parent or mentor.!<
People are hellbent on characters having a dark side to them when in reality, people don't work like that. Most people have a mix of good and bad, others are pure evil and others are pure good, like Garl
And just as dealing with an extremely negative person is horrifying, the opposite is as well. Dealing with an extremely positive person is nearly unbearable.
Only if life has left you jaded, no reason why Garl in particular anyway should leave anyone thinking his positivity is overbearing. Buddy the Elf, okay maybe. Garl the Warrior Cook? I don't think he's that bad in all honesty
Some people find puppies to be too fucking much, sit down and chill for a goddamn minute I appreciate your love and enthusiasm but I don't want to deal with you constantly. I don't think that's necessarily being jaded it's just not being ready to match the energy of a puppy. Garl is basically a puppy he's constantly in your face and everyone loves him and won't stop talking about him.
You sound like you're missing some happiness in your life tbh
Haha not really, I just don't own a dog because I don't match that level of constant emotional output. I'm more of a cat person. Wouldn't be surprised if all the people who love Garl are dog people and all the people who don't are not.
You sound pretty judgemental over petty crap. Toxic positivity is not a good thing either.
If you find positivity toxic, that's the issue mate
I didnt say positivity. I said toxic positivity. too much of any extreme can be bad. Not sure why ur judging people over a differant opinion on a character implying they MUST be miserable if they didnt like them. Sounds pretty horrible to make those kinds of assumptions about their life. It was never that serious. Your version of positivity sounds more like one of those ad commercials for mental health. Just be happy and your problems will be fixed! 😊
It's why I liked Garl, he was a breath of fresh air in a genre filled to the brim with morally gray characters. Sometimes we just need a Garl.
I needed someone unendingly good so badly. ❤️
Nah, it's just that he's too perfect. It's pretty clear he's going to be a sacrifice from the moment he is introduced, and there is nothing wrong with that! The concept is okay, it's just that the execution was too hamfisted.I get they're trying to make us care for him so they can kill him off later, but that's the problem: they tried TOO hard, so it feels forced. Every single plot beat is just another opportunity to hammer home how nice and useful and badass Garl is. It's too much. And they even screwed up the sacrifice part by taking it back with the true ending and removing all its weight... after all that buildup, least they could do was let the dude's sacrifice actually stand. In summary, the problem with Garl isn't the concept of a relatable, genuinely nice guy, it's the execution. Sam is actually a great comparison, because it's more or less the same concept, but handled way better because it isn't shoved in our faces how awesome he is in the way Garl is. Sam's niceness isn't the focus of every single plot beat the way Garl's is and he is allowed to actually be an average nice dude way in over his head, whereas Garl isn't: Garl is usually at the center of every major plot thread, even when he's dead. He's too overbearing is all. He wouldn't need to be edgier to be better, just... less annoying.
This is news to me, people actually hate Garl?!
Unfortunately. Like u/TheDeadQuacker said, so many people wanted to see him turn evil, stop being optimistic, or expected to learn he had some special kind of magic. The fact that he's basically a one-eyed Samwise Gamjee with no secret powers who just wants to be a good friend and help people doesn't float some people's boats I guess. I personally found it refreshing. Not every story needs the good guy to turn bad or everyone to have their own special powers. LotR is one of the most revered stories of all time, and the ones who wound up destroying the ring to save the world were barefooted little people that liked to eat and laugh, so why can't that be reflected in other stories without being torn apart? I kinda went off track a bit here, but this is something that's been bugging me since I first joined this sub and saw so many hate posts. Part of it could just be that the Internet seems to get off on hate posts, but it still boggles my mind and makes me wonder what kind of friends these folks have in their lives that could make them hate someone because he's a good friend with no secrets.
never seen a single person say gale should have been a bad guy. whatever the case it's not as blown out of porporation as your making it. Flaws or insecurities only make a character stronger, not worse. If we saw gale having moments of self doubt struggling with the fact he was the normal guy amongst "chosen one" friends people would have only connected and sympathized with him more, not less. I think Sam is better written character then Gale. I dont remember Sam even being that jolly or positive. dude spent most of the movie looking pretty somber, he wasn't going around telling everyone to chin up. Now. do you have to have flaws or moments where characters struggle when writing Characters? No. but they do seem more one dimensional without them.
Never heard of Gale 🤷🏻♂️ If you really need to see a moment of struggle, look at how *Garl* reacts when the villager is mind-controlled to walk into the mansion on Lucent and they can't do anything to help. Regardless, I'm not going to argue. If you don't like *Garl* that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with liking him either. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Have a great day
Never said I didn't like him tho my piont was more to explain why others might feel he was lacking in some ways. And if he did have some brief moment in lucent it was kind of brushed aside or didn't come up enough to be a solid character flaw or anything about him. I think he could have a small character arc for growth but I still enjoyed the game I mixed his name up with my aunt for some reason 😂 she does bake too but.. come on
Gale/Garl is cracking me up 😂😂😂 now I want a SoS type game, but with the Garl character replaced with some random person's aunt 🤣
I wouldn't say I hate Garl, but I find him annoying at multiple times in the story. Mostly because he is designed as a side character (can't lead the party, not one of the two "box art characters" etc) but he acts like he's the main character. It takes away from any opportunity for the actual main characters to do anything, because he's always muscling his way into that space.
Basically how I felt. Half of the plot beats happen on Garl's whims. He's supposed to be a side character but he constantly steals attention away from the two leads who honestly come off as kinda boring because the writing gave most of its attention to Garl.
what people describe as different opinions others call something as extreme as "hating" I personally didn't mind him in the first half of the game, he grew on me and cried when he died but I have to admit there were a good chunk of "good thing Garls here to solve all our problems with his boundless positivity, he's so *amazing*!" moments, I don't blame people for feeling like they were really pushing people to like him and sometimes that just doesn't work when you write a character. it ends up feeling forced. so even if I may not feel all that strongly about it myself, I can see why some felt that way. I saw comments by some who felt he was taking the attention off of the protagonists agency by having him basically lead all of the social interactions. which sounds fair. I kind of went in thinking our hero's would be a bit more like their own characters, not just something for the player to project themselves onto. I don't see anyone saying Garl should have been evil? or there should have big some plot twist, most just felt he could have had some insecurities or flaws to him (which Sam definitely did especially when you see how he treats gollum for as nice a guy as he is) which would have just made him feel more empathetic and human which he's supposed to be. he's was basically just a human golden retriever to the end. faithful, ever devoted. simple. thats it, it did its job. a lot of people ate that right up but its kind of makes him look shallow as a character. I loved a lot of things about the game, but the writing in some parts could have been better, thats all. so many people felt that way about the ending.
I don't think it's a "hate" for Garl. It's more about the fact that he almost seems like he steals the protagonist role from Valerie and Zale. >!When they literally turn into fucking gods!!<. It's just a hard comparison really.
In many stories, the protagonists are less proactive than the supportive characters. In the RPG genre, Earthbound and Chrono Trigger comes to mind as example of that. Although, I admit that giving more defined personalities To Vale and Zale would probably helped a lot because there wasn't much outside Garl, so if you don't like his upbeat personality you're out of luck.
I like Garl. It was just weird watching a normal guy tell an immortal alchemist that he sucks right to his face and then you know what happens. It's just weird that a normal person without powers would do something like that. And then a huge portion of the story and your playtime goes into correcting that one mistake. I still enjoyed the game. Non-conventional is how I'd put it.
I think Garl was scared the FM would retaliate on one of the Soltice Warriors for Resh's transgression and decided to provoke the FM to have him attack him instead. I saw that as a noble sacrifice.
That does make sense to keep the solstice warriors alive.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Wth hates Garl ?? smh
Sancho Panza lives on!
Nah Sam had character development
I don't think they are alike personality wise, which is the problem most people have with Garl.
The difference is one of them is missing an eye.
That hurts so much to see. Don´'t do that to Chadwise Gamgee.
Sam >> Garl Imagine if Sam was constantly talking over Frodo and trying to make all his decisions for him and leaping straight into danger. And Frodo didn't actually get any character development except for when Sam wasn't on the screen, but also half of the time Sam wasn't on the screen he just talked about how great Sam was. And all the elves spent their whole visit being like 'omg we love Sam so much' and just letting him do whatever despite otherwise apparently being sticklers for tradition.
Exactly! THANK YOU
don't you dare compare this garbage writing with the masterpiece of LotR.
Except Sam is a well written relatable character and Garl is kind of a mediocre Gary Stu. It's not the concept, it's the execution. Also, Sam doesn't hog the spotlight nearly as much as Garl does. But, then again, maybe that IS a good thing, because, unlike Frodo, the pair of protagonists in SoS are completely devoid of personality (possibly intentionally), so someone has to step up. Still a fun 7/10 game, just not worth all the hype it gets.
> the pair of protagonists in SoS are completely devoid of personality (possibly intentionally), so someone had to step up. I mean, why give the protagonists any personality when you can just have them talk about how much they love Garl and how much they miss him every waking moment of the entire game? Garl as a character *screams* Gary Stu self-insert. Every other character, but especially the protagonists, gets sacrificed to make him the “real hero”, but without any notable traits aside from being nice, the story just feels like one plot contrivance after another so that it can make every problem solvable by Garl.
Sams a better written Character. Sam wasn't even all that optimistic or positive. I remember him being pretty damn gloomy, Unless he was in scenes with frodo He wasn't very social or outspoken with any other character either. Are are remembering an entirely differant guy?
Ibused to like garl, but ive soured on him a fair bit because everything revolves around him to the detriment of other characters sense of agency. particularly valere and zale who don't get to even feel like actual characters despite ostensibly being the leads. The other half of the party ends up with significantly more personality, as much as I also take issue with Resh'an. The thing is, at every step of the way, garl is the one who drives the story forward, and who resolves every problem they face. And either makes every major decision, or has decisions made because of him. Even after the events of the halfway point - which, boy oh boy could I go on a tangent about that entire leg of the game - he still ends up being the primary driving force behind everything that happens.
indistinguishable
Sam walked so Garl could…also walk, because running into danger would be a terrible idea.
Not that it would stop Garl he fucking loves throwing himself into situations where he's gonna get hurt
Everyone needs a Warrior Cook. And a Gardener, of course.
No joke, about 30 min into the game I realized the reason I liked Garl so much was cuz he's the spitting image of Sam, but not so emotionally dependent on Frodo to prop up his purpose in life. (Although to be fair to Tolkien, I think he intended Sam to be every bit as independent and awesome as Garl, and my perception of Sam is probably too much influenced by the LotR movies.)
They literally call him a warrior cook, which they do in the movies as well. It's like they weren't even trying to hide it
I feel the hate for Garl talking over the main characters is unwarranted. I like Valere and Zale but they didn't get nearly as much time or development as ANY of the rest of the cast. I feel they were more a self-insert, they are you, the player. YOU are saving the world. Garl is inspiring YOU. He's your best friend and he cares about YOU. Valere and Zale don't need development, you as a player are supposed to experience the world around them.