No, they're not the same kind of law at smaller scale, they're fundamentally different systems with different purposes, different parties, different standards of proof, and different consequences.
Criminal law deals with conduct the government has defined as a crime against society as a whole, even when there's an identifiable victim. The case is brought by the state (the prosecutor, acting as "the People" or "the State"), not by the victim. That's why criminal cases are styled like "State v. Smith" rather than "Victim v. Smith," the victim is a witness, not the party suing. The goal is punishment and deterrence: jail or prison time, fines paid to the government, probation, or other penalties. Because the stakes include loss of liberty, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest standard in the legal system, and defendants get protections like the right to a public defender if they can't afford a lawyer, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to a jury trial.
Civil law deals with disputes between private parties (individuals, companies, organizations) over rights, obligations, and compensation. One party (the plaintiff) sues another (the defendant) typically seeking money damages or some other remedy like an injunction, not jail time. Examples include personal injury claims, breach of contract, divorce and custody disputes, property disputes, and employment disputes. The standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," meaning more likely than not (essentially over 50%), which is a much lower bar than the criminal standard. There's no right to a free attorney in civil cases, each side typically pays for their own lawyer.
The same underlying conduct can sometimes trigger both systems at once. A classic example is a person who commits assault: the state can prosecute them criminally for the assault itself, while the victim can separately sue them civilly for damages like medical bills and pain and suffering. One famous real-world illustration of this distinction was a defendant acquitted in a criminal trial (beyond a reasonable doubt) but found liable in a related civil suit (preponderance of the evidence), because the standards of proof are different and a civil jury can reach a different conclusion than a criminal jury even when looking at similar facts.
So the "smaller scale" framing isn't quite right, it's not a matter of severity, it's a different legal track entirely, with different rules, different goals, and a different party bringing the case.