I consider a game "good" if (a) I enjoyed it, (b) won decisively, and/or (c) learned something. Sometimes all three of those happen in a game and the accuracy is 60% or lower. Sometimes none of those three happen and my accuracy is around 90%. In other words, accuracy is irrelevant to whether a game is "good". (For me, at least.) Good is a very subjective term.
What accuracy % do you consider a “good” game?

It's not just in winning situations where accuracy doesn't tell the whole story, but also sometimes in losing position. As a human, when you're down, often what you want to do is make it hard for your opponent to find moves by complicating the position. Stockfish can easily cut through a complicated board, but humans find this more difficult. Stockfish would say that your moves are inaccurate, or possibly even losing, but against humans it's often best to make the position hard to calculate to give yourself practical chances.

last game i got 100 accrocy so that was nice
Great. You should have earned a spellchecker as trophy.
of course i like a high accuracy score.... but sometimes when i simplify chess.com thinks it was inaccurate. i am playing to my level. i am not Magnus. i will take the advantage where i know i can win even if it overlooks some fancy nancy line where i would fkk it up half way throug that line, when winning ... keep it simple... dont be greedy,,, back in your end game. anyway, what would i know?

For me (1300), for rapid games, I think 60%- is really bad, 60-70% is bad, 70-80% is ok, 80-90% is decent, 90%+, 0 blunders (at least obvious ones) and missed wins, and minimal mistakes is optimal.

Blitz: 80-90%, 90+ seems unreal for such low rating, like my oponent gave up on life. I don't think even high ratings play ultra accurate, its blitz, ye?

Sometimes when I premove too much and get tricked into blundering stuff but still win or draw, those are also good games
last game i got 100 accrocy so that was nice