I can't entirely agree. I WANT the game to limit choices based on my past actions, because that's what having consequences to choices means. Yes, you might want to be best friends with all the girls, but in the end you can only have so many "best" friends and eventually that will matter, both to you and to them. Obviously it's not an all or one deal, closing off some choices should mean closing off all choices, and deciding where to draw the line is a matter of personal taste more than it is science (or even art). But just because it's a hard balancing act doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
To me, it makes sense that Sage would lose interest in the MC after he rejects her twice in a row (at least for a while). It makes sense that an MC romancing Jill, a girl who clearly sees sex as a much bigger commitment than others, would decide to turn down one-night stands after he tells Jill he's falling for her. Likewise, it would make sense for an MC pursing Maya and Josy to turn down Cathy... if it weren't for the fact he was reluctant to stop dating other women when he discussed the matter the next day.
And that's where I do agree with you,
Holy Bacchus. DPC can be very inconsistent in both how he chooses which consequences to assign to an action and in how he illustrates those consequences. For the most part, I'm lucky; DPC and I seem to have a similar overall view of how the world works and thus I can usually see where he's coming from. (I still have plenty of disagreements with him, obviously). But the real issue is that he should worry less about how 'gameable' the system is and more about keeping it transparent.
As long as we can understand the rationale behind a consequence, we can at least pick the one closest to what we think should happen. When the chain of reasoning is vague and contradictory, well, that just encourages us to rant about it on pirate forums while we wait for a proper walkthrough to make sense of it all.
(And hope it doesn't end in literal fire, of course. Always need to add that caveat...)