Computer Gaming World in 1983 found
Reach for the Stars quite user-friendly and enjoyable, with the single flaw of a lack of notification of natural disasters, which could not fit onto the disk space available. The computer AI and customization of each game were particular highlights of the review. In a 1992 survey of science fiction games the magazine gave the title five of five stars, praising it as "arguably the best science fiction game ever released ... a product still worth playing". A 1994 survey of strategic space games set in the year 2000 and later gave the game four stars out of five, stating that "a worthy update would no doubt raise this game again to 5-star status".
Compute! in 1986 called the game "a particularly fine simulation of galactic exploration, combat, and conquest", noting that players needed to balance several different priorities to succeed. It concluded that
Reach for the Stars was "one of the better games on the market this year".
inCider in 1986 gave the Apple II version three stars ("Above average") out of four, stating that while the game was "exciting", "[i]t's unromantic to say that much of the rest of the game is a matter of juggling numbers, but that's the truth".
Jerry Pournelle of
BYTE wrote in 1989 that the Mac version of
Reach for the Stars was "certainly the best implemented" version of
Stellar Conquest. The game was reviewed in 1994 in
Dragon #211 by Jay & Dee in the "Eye of the Monitor" column. Jay did not rate the game, but Dee gave the game 3½ out of 5 stars. The
Macworld 1988 Game Hall of Fame named
Reach for the Stars runner-up to
Trust & Betrayal: The Legacy of Siboot in the Best Role-Playing Game category, calling it a "well-implemented" scenario of economic empire building in outer space. Norman Banduch reviewed
Reach for the Stars in
Space Gamer No. 69. Banduch commented that "
Reach For The Stars is a most addictive game. After player 10 to 15 hours a week for several months I still find it hard to save the game and go home. It offers a wide variety of set-up conditions and victory conditions, and play is never the same. The computer is a tough foe. Even after the is mastered, there are enough options and random variables to keep it from going stale. I cannot recommend it enough". Ewald commented that "all things considered, I really enjoyed the game. I feel parts of the combat system are illogical, but the game as a whole is great". == Sequel ==