After thinking this question over a bit more, it seems the major difference between
a 9.7 and a 6.8 earthquake besides duration of the event is the area involved. For
someone involved in an earthquake the area only becomes known afterwards through
power outages, TV etc. The largest recorded earthquakes ever, a Mw 9.7 in Chile exactly
41 years ago on 22-23 May 1960 did less local damage than the Mw 6.8
in Armenia in December 1988 and killed far fewer people (about 2,000) than an Mw 7.2
in Taiwan in 1999 and is not even listed in the top 50 death tolls from earthquakes. It
resulted in damages valued 30 times less ($500 million vs $14 billion)
than the Mw 6.8 in Northridge in January, 1994 and nearly 200 times less than
the Kobe quake in 1995 ($100 billion) which was also in the Mw 6.8 range.
Local accelerations in all these events were near 1 g. What made the Mw 9.7 in
Chile. different is the areal extent of the damage. The fault ruptured nearly 1000 km
in length. This resulted in over 2,000,000 people homeless, one of the largest
tolls in this regard of any earthquake.
A small earthquake can be very damaging locally. A ml 2.5 outside Washington
D.C. caused a man to fall off his bicycle resulting in hospitalization. This is the
smallest quake known to have caused injuries requiring hospitalization. Two
days ago a Ml 3.3 in India caused 300 homes to collapse. These events were felt
at the location of the rupture, just as a Mw 9.7 affect most those people at the
location of the rupture, it is just that the rupture is much larger and longer.

(