Hobbes and Locke on the state of nature and what threatens peace in society

In my paper, I will argue that, although it is common knowledge that Hobbes and Locke strongly and openly disagree about the desirable form of government, and equally have different description of the state of nature, the careful reader might notice that after all the needed qualifications are added and the colours of persuasion removed (i.e. the violence of homo homini lupus for Hobbes and the idyllic peace and abundance of resources for Locke), the state of nature à la Hobbes is not significantly different from the state of nature à la Locke. Which makes room for the subsequent question that I plan to address here: if the starting point is in both cases (almost) the same, how could the desired (and somehow resulting) forms of government be so different?