I have heard somewhere that Queen's Gambit is favored by those who like quiet positional play and King's Gambit by those who like lively game studded with tactical traps. Is this true?
It depends a little. The Queen's Gambit can lead to very lively play, if both parties are willing, but it's easier to turn it positional, as the Queen's Gambit is more of a "pseudo-gambit" than the King's Gambit; White will almost always be able to regain his pawn if it's taken, even without going all out for blood.
The King's Gambit is different. White opens up lines in front of his own king, and in order not to get into a worse position, White will have to play very energetically, as it's more difficult to regain the lost pawn. If White loses his initiative without regaining his sacrificed pawn, things can turn very ugly.
So it's more a matter of White being forced to be prepared to play that way in the King's Gambit, as opposed to the Queen's gambit, as White in the latter opening doesn't need to worry as much about being worse if his attack doesn't go through.