The problem is that I'm old enough to remember when "retro" meant "looks and plays entirely differently than modern games in a way you don't see anymore", rather than just "nostalgic"
Whereas PS3/360 being retro means they look and play basically exactly the same as modern games, just with the graphics a bit less vivid.
If you ported a game from the NES onto the Gamecube, it doesn't matter how much you try to improve the graphics, folks would still be able to tell its smaller and lesser than contemporary games. If you tried to port the OG legend of Zelda to gamecube and sell it as a full priced game, folks would laugh at you. If you tried to port The Wind Waker to Switch and sell it as a full priced game, folks would nod and say it sounds like a good deal. Port a game from the PS2 onto the PS5 (the FFX-FFX-2 bundle, for instance, or FFXII: The Zodiac Age, or Persona 3 and 4), and sure there might be some visible seams between where the graphics were natively upscaled and where they weren't, but it will still feel just as big and grand and feature-full as a contemporary game and won't really feel like its missing anything in terms of scale that only later processing advances could have brought.
Hell, Final Fantasy XIV started out on the PS3, still has active content from its PS3 days, and only just got a graphical patch beyond that, and nobody considers it "outdated" or "retro" despite being from a supposedly "retro" console.