It was a bit smaller-scale (two-thirds the height) of a Falcon first stage, and I believe also had a less complicated engine. More importantly, though, given the failure mode of this rocket, it had no mission other than taking off a bit and then landing - it wasn't integrated into a rocket that was intended to get to the edge of space, decelerate from hypersonic speeds, and then do the complicated landing.
It's also worth noting that the engines were lit 100% during those previous tests, while they have to be relight during this one. That comes with it's own set of complications of course.
see more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_d...
Similarly, Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 proved fairly conclusively that NASA could land humans on the moon, but it was actually doing so on Apollo 11 that was so incredibly important.
As someone who doesn't know the slightest bit about space technology, I was a bit confused about the fact that they successfully landed another rocket. If that's the case why is the landing of Flacon 9 so significant? Is it like a bigger rocket or something?