I would want an officeholder to be someone engaged with their constituents, the issues, their family, a business owner, the community, with hobbies that build useful skills and/or involve real social interaction and personal improvement. I would put learning to play guitar, the shooting sports, reading, and investing in a group activity like a church family in that category; massive amounts of gaming I would not.
I say this as a gamer who worked as a tester in the industry and enjoy them. But there's a difference between enjoying a fine cigar every now and then and being a chain smoker.
If I was looking for someone to run my business or represent me in a political manner, I'd pick the guy or gal who played in a band, spoke several languages, or spent a lot of time with his church groups over the guy who played WoW for dozens of hours per month and had achieved level whatever in some fantasyland.
So your basic problem is that you're making judgement calls on hobbies that are "Good" and "Useful" and "Bad" or "Useless"
For tens of millions of Americans online gaming is exactly what skeet shooting, playing an instrument, etc. is to you or anyone else. If you want to lose all their votes by deeming online gaming a uniquely inappropriate hobby for an elected official, go right ahead.
Been out of it a while (mostly because I was in grad school) but I've met great friends playing an on-line multiplayer World War II flight simulator, and gained "useful skills" in terms of organization and planning (I've commanded large scenarios with hundreds of pilots and intricate planning). It's helped me understand military history and the challenges of command control, limited intelligence, the fog of war, etc. which has directly aided my regular job (military operations analysis), much more than restoring a 64 Impala or volunteering at a church would have.