So I'm gonna talk about that. Head down below the break for my thoughts.
As I'm finishing Project Horizons, on thing that's struck me repeatedly about the story as I compare it to Fallout: Equestria is how Kkat and Somber are both using the same setting, and both have similar themes when it comes to the innate goodness of all people contrasted with the obvious evils of the world, focusing especially on how nominally noble goals can lead to villainy when not paired with a commitment to using noble means to reach those goals... and yet, take those identical themes and settings to completely different places.
Fo:E tends to ascribe a veneer of virtue to its villains before pulling back to show the hypocrisy of their actions. It contrasts their intentions with their actions, showing (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) that these characters are ultimately driven by more base desires: greed, power, and all the rest. Even as they genuinely do strive for peace, stability, and the like, these are shown in truth to be secondary ends. At the same time, the base desires of the heroes are explored as well. The ultimate point is that "good guys" and "bad guys" aren't defined by their motives, but by how they weight identical goals, and which they're willing to sacrifice to achieve others.
PH, on the other hand, consistently roots evil actions in tragic backstories. Most often, the source of viciousness and cruelty is shown to be some fundamental hurt which a character has suffered, one which drives them to revenge, to violence, to overzealous attempts to eliminate their pain, simply a need to feel something. It also looks at ultimate origins and how one can break that cycle of pain; Somber tends to portray "bad guys" and "good guys" alike as victims, with the difference being whether one is able to rise above that which is inflicted upon them, or if they come to be (/let themselves be) defined by their victimhood.
Same theme, broadly speaking. Very different worldview.
"Worldview" is a difficult thing to define, because it's so pervasive. It can be cultural, moral, political. I remember one example of the latter from my first pony fanfic, which used as part of its premise the idea that Equestria was on the brink of economic collapse centuries ago because ponies spent so much time partying, and that Celestia helped organize a secret society of party-curtailing ponies to keep productivity at sustainable levels (it was... kind of a weird premise, in retrospect). And I remember getting a comment on the story's EqD page from someone who was livid over how miserable my understanding of economics was:
1)You fail economics forever. Equestria is expressly a capitalistic society, not a collectivist one--- and in a capitalist society, the balance between labor and rest is self regulating. Those who work less, prosper less, and are surpassed by their competition. If you're partying all the time it's because you can AFFORD it... and if not you and you alone pay the consequences An "unsustainable lifestyle" would be one where the government dictates productivity from the top down (covertly or otherwise) as presented in your story. One would think this would be self-evident to anyone who has seen what a raging clusterf*** that the government makes of even simple jobs like delivering the mail or balancing the budget. People didn't starve in breadlines in Russia because of excessive government efficiency, after all.
2)It would take an absolutely rotten, vile being to even conceive of such an arrangement, much less execute it. thank you so much for making a minor, albeit likeable character into a tool of a repulsive government bureaucracy.
Leaving aside the tenor of the comment, let's look at the underlying belief of this commenter: that the invisible hand is an absolute force, and that "not enough production" simply can't happen in a society where that hand is given something approaching free reign; supply will rise to meet demand, or demand will curtail.
Obviously, that's not my view--or rather, it's obvious that I don't share that view, based on my story. There's probably a lot more that you can tell about how I view the world, based on the fiction I write. Much of it probably wouldn't even occur to me as something I "put in" my story, any more than I "put in" a critique of lassiez-faire economics to a story about professional party-pooping.
But that's the wonderful thing about fiction: it allows us to view a different world through another person's eyes. And that doesn't just mean seeing fictitious adventures, nor does it even "just" mean being exposed to morals we might personally be inclined to disagree with: a good story can immerse you in a worldview which might be totally alien to you. A great one can make you understand that worldview, and even if you continue to disagree with it, help you see what people who do agree with it actually believe.