Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor was apparently the equivalent of Joey or Frasier. It was a spin-off, written for the sake of a subordinate character, Falstaff. People loved Falstaff so much that Shakespeare had to keep bringing him back. He supposedly wrote Merry Wives at Queen Elizabeth's command (which reminds me of Jamie saying bluntly, "Really!?" when Obama wanted him and Adam to try out the mirrors-as-weapons experiment again on Mythbusters).
Despite being requested by Queen Elizabeth, Merry Wives of Windsor wasn't particularly liked even at the time, though it was one of the first Shakespearean plays shown at the start of the Restoration (after the equivalent of lockdowns were lifted). I imagine it was chosen as a way for the theater-going crowd to thumb their noses (or bite their thumbs) at the Puritans.
I didn't especially want to read the play since I don't care about Falstaff at all. Instead, I watched Orson Welles in The Chimes at Midnight. It helped that the older Orson Welles is how I see Falstaff!
This movie is basically Henry IV, Parts I and II with text from other plays. It is exceptionally well-edited. It is told mostly from Falstaff's point of view but the plot isn't about him (directly).
And it proves that Falstaff is best presented within a larger story. Like with so many spinoffs, he is more interesting as a subordinate rather than a main character (Frasier was truly an exception, not a rule.)
From a romance perspective, Falstaff has less luck than the man who played him. I'm not a fan of the poor buffoon plot used by Merry Wives. And I agree with those critics that the complication of Falstaff is that despite his jokes and joie de vivre, he is in fact a villain. Hal is right to repudiate him.
The true relationship is Falstaff and Hal.